North Hunterdon-Voorhees board tables vote to change district legal counsel after heated public comment

The North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional High School District Board of Education on Jan. 28 tabled a resolution that would have named Bush Law Group as the district’s general counsel and moved Commegano Law Group to special counsel, after more than a dozen members of the public urged the board to keep the current firm and board members called for more information and process.

Several residents said replacing the district’s long-serving attorney in the middle of the school year would be disruptive and potentially costly. “Changing legal counsel … undermines these principles and creates unnecessary disruption, diverting resources from more pressing issues,” said Deborah Bonomi of Tewksbury Township during public comment, directly criticizing the resolution posted as item 17 (Res. 0128254).

Other public speakers raised similar concerns. Amy Barrett of Highbridge said the move was not just about hourly rates but followed past board disputes over legal advice: “If this motion passes, I hope that the board will heed reasonable legal advice from its new general counsel and not cost taxpayers the tens of thousands of dollars in litigation costs incurred by politicized boards such as Sparta and Hanover,” she said. Another speaker warned that firing a firm that had pushed back on illegal book-ban proposals could chill legal warnings in the future.

Board President (Miss) Celino told the assembled audience that the resolution before the board was not a dismissal: “The resolution … is not to release Mr. Commegano or Commegano’s firm. It is to switch the roles of our councils,” she said, explaining that the change would place Bush Law Group in the general-counsel role and retain Commegano as special counsel on matters where the firm is already engaged.

Board members raised procedural and fiscal questions. Several members said the board’s usual practice is to consider professional-service changes through committees and, when appropriate, an RFP or comparable competitive process. Board members and members of the public pointed to contract timing and transition costs: the current professional-service contracts cover the 2024–25 school year and were renewed last June, and moving primary counsel midterm could require transferring active matters and files between firms. Board discussion also referenced a 30-day-notice/termination window in the current professional service arrangements.

Rates cited during the meeting underscored the fiscal element of the debate: board discussion and administration noted Bush Law Group’s stated billing at about $180 per hour for attorneys and $85 per hour for paralegals, versus Commegano’s higher listed rates (discussion in the meeting cited partner/partner-equivalent rates near $225 per hour, associates $195, paralegals $100). Board members asked for an estimate of the transition carryover costs (hours required to onboard files and active matters) before any final decision.

After extended public comment and internal debate, a motion to table the resolution and route the issue into committee-level review was moved and seconded. The board agreed to collect more information, to engage both firms for clarifying materials, and to hold additional committee and board-level discussions before any final vote. President Celino said the executive board and administration had discussed alternatives and that the district would pursue a deliberative process “so everyone can be heard and the fiscal impacts can be assessed.”

The episode drew repeated appeals from the public to keep politics out of school governance and to prioritize students and fiscal stewardship over personnel or political considerations. Multiple speakers, including parents and residents from several sending municipalities, urged the board to delay any change until the end of the school year or until a full comparison of legal services and transition costs had been produced.

Board members and administration agreed to next steps: committees will review the matter and draft a report with the fiscal implications, a summary of legal services provided by both firms, and recommended procedures (including whether to run a formal RFP when the existing contract expires). The board indicated it would schedule follow-up discussion in public session after committees report back.